Hello
2012/12/29 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> it is a problem of this patch or not consistent constraints implementation ?
>
> Not sure, but I don't think it matters. You can blame the constraint
> implementation, but that doesn't change my feelings about what we need
> before we can accept a patch like this. Providing something which works
> only part of the time and then doesn't work for very unclear reasons
> isn't a good idea. Perhaps we need to fix the constraint implementation
> and perhaps we need to fix the error information being returned, or most
> likely we have to fix both, it doesn't change that we need to do
> something more than just ignore this problem.
so we have to solve this issue first. Please, can you do resume, what
is and where is current constraint implementation raise
strange/unexpected messages?
one question
when we will fix constraints, maybe we can use some infrastructure for
enhanced error fields. What about partial commit now - just necessary
infrastructure without modification of other code - I am thinking so
there is agreement on new fields: column_name, table_name,
schema_name, constraint_name and constraint_schema?
Regards
Pavel
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen